I actually read most of the bill a little while back. I’m not a lawyer, but it seemed to me to indicate that not only can players not be prohibited from receiving endorsement money, but that there can be no limitations on it. This is something the NCAA simply can’t adopt IMO. You might as well fully open it up and directly pay players because anyone could pay any player and simply call it endorsement money.

I would actually see it as a valid business opportunity in some cases. Imagine a business that makes it known that they give a 500k endorsement deal to every IU player? That’s going to be a very popular business in the state of Indiana, and for the right business could be well worth the 6.5 million investment per year. Or choose whatever number you want. I could even see this even opening the door for actual crowdfunding campaigns to help recruit players as well.

I have no problems with giving athletes more money, but there has to be more restrictions and regulations around it. I’m sure that’s a big reason they simply don’t allow it at all, because that’s the easiest way to restrict it and they don’t want to open up even more loopholes.

Regardless it’s going to be interesting to see what happens. Somebody has to bend. The current law will basically force California schools out of the NCAA as currently stands. Would that be the death of the NCAA or those power programs in California? I can’t imagine either side wants to find out.

If the NCAA simply bans Calif. schools, every 4 and 5 star player will go out there to play for pay. The AP top 25 will be only Calif. schools, and their state tournment will be far more compelling than the NCAA tournament - Pepperdine and UC Riverside will become powerhouses and garner lucrative TV contracts.

The thing that the Pay to Play supporters always fail to address is that these kids do in fact have options. They can go play overseas and get paid. They can go to the G League and get paid. Soon the NBA's one and done rule will likely go away. So why do these 5* stud prospects continue to go play in college where they can't get paid (at least legally)?

The college game still offers the best exposure to help maximize long term earnings potential. Besides hardcore fans, people really don't know about the top prospects coming out of high school (LeBron/Zion types excluded). Playing a year of college ball helps develop their brand (NCAA tourney glory, school support, etc) and makes them much more attractive to companies for sponsorship. Trey Young is a great recent example. I knew nothing about him prior to his freshman year and he ended the year as one of the biggest names in the sport. He doesn't get that in the Europe or the G League.

The guys that aren't going to the league get a benefit too. Look at the number of Butler players that have been able to get into coaching and have a career in their passion. Then you have guys that were at least decent students and graduated with a degree that have something to put on their resume that bare minimum could get them in the door for an interview they otherwise wouldn't have chance at and best case the hiring manager is an alum and puts them on the top of the list to where they just have to not mess it up.

All that said, I do think allowing a University stipend similar to what a normal college kid could make with a part time job is a reasonable concession. Let them have a little money in their pocket to go grab pizza or see a movie and be normal college kids without opening up a bidding system where Oregon gets every great player because they have Phil Knight's $$$ behind them. Have a maximum cap on what the stipend can be and figure out some method of reporting on what is being paid out to who and when.

One way or another the landscape is changing. BU players are capable of getting stipend pending housing and meal plans. Pooling efforts to share rent on a house to divert scholarship money, allows for this currently. Iowa football players often qualify for federal subsidized housing (section 8). I won't say players are getting wealthy but often they can afford more than pizza. I think legislators want to be on the right side of history with this, but it is only beginning.

Payment for likeness is hard to argue against, but as said earlier, what stops the power brokers from investing in companies to funnel "Sponsorship" money? Come to "Power 5 school" and we'll have your in a laundry list of advertising spots and will pay you $millions." Wink wink.
Again, it's tough to argue against someone being paid for their image, but schools like Butler will struggle, as our alumni base cannot compete with the likes of almost all Power 5 schools and many non-Power 5 schools.

It seems fairly simple. Let them market their name or a personally trademarked logo, but nothing with a team/school likeness. If a lineman from podunk Kansas can raise $7500 from selling $15 dollar T-shirt’s to everyone in his hometown, great. If a star running back from California raises $500,000, then good for him. The NCAA needs to bend, or it's going to get crushed.

It seems fairly simple. Let them market their name or a personally trademarked logo, but nothing with a team/school likeness. If a lineman from podunk Kansas can raise $7500 from selling $15 dollar T-shirt’s to everyone in his hometown, great. If a star running back from California raises $500,000, then good for him. The NCAA needs to bend, or it's going to get crushed.